Pesticides on Blackberry in Fruiting Season

Recently, one of our neighbors was walking on Mt Davidson. It’s the time of the year when the blackberry bushes bear fruit, to the delight of children and the public in general (and not a few animals and birds). She was unpleasantly surprised to find that the bushes were to be sprayed with herbicide.

“It’s the fruiting season!” she noted, wondering if this was legal.

Unfortunately, it is.  In 2016, SF Environment imposed restrictions on spraying blackberry bushes during the fruiting season. But the way the restrictions are written, they apply only to Tier I (“Most Hazardous”) pesticides and not to the Tier II (“More hazardous”) pesticides that the Natural Resources Division (NRD – formerly Natural Areas Program) also uses quite frequently. The NRD commonly uses “the fearsome four” pesticides: Garlon, Roundup, Milestone VM and Polaris (also called Habitat). All of them are toxic in some degree.

The herbicides used in this case are Milestone VM (aminopyralid) and Polaris (Imazapyr). Both are toxic and are classified as “More Hazardous” (Tier II). Imazapyr can damage eyes, and its breakdown product is a neurotoxin, which means it causes nerve damage. Aminopyralid is a newer chemical, but is known to be astonishingly persistent. It’s banned in some places because of that.

 

SF ENVIRONMENT’S PESTICIDE USE RESTRICTIONS

In 2016, the SF Department of the Environment engaged in a lengthy process of trying to improve its restrictions on  some of the most problematic use of pesticides in our parks.

(You can read the entire compliance guidelines here as a PDF. It’s from the SF Environment website. sfe_th_ipm_compliance_checklist – Copy )

Among them, they developed these restrictions:

 Pesticide use

✓ A written recommendation from a licensed Agricultural Pest Control Advisor (PCA) is required for any pesticide use. Departments that do not have PCAs on staff should contact the SF Environment IPM Manager.

✓ Only pesticides on the current SF Reduced Risk Pesticide List may be used. Usage must fall within the “limitations” listed for each product, along with label requirements.

✓ ‘Most hazardous’ (Tier I) herbicides have special limitations:

  • Use is prohibited for purely cosmetic purposes.
  • Use is prohibited within 15 feet of designated paths. If a park map exists, designated paths are those found on the maps. Otherwise, designated paths are those actively maintained by staff.
  • Use is prohibited within 15 feet of schools, preschools, playgrounds, or other areas frequented by children.
  • Use on blackberry bushes is prohibited when fruit are present 
  • If within the City limits, use requires onsite supervision by a licensed person (PCA, QAL/QAC) o No broadcast spraying with a boom is permitted except for golf courses (targeted spraying only)
  • Certain pesticide use is restricted in designated Red-Legged Frog habitat, which includes Golden Gate Park, Lake Merced, and several other areas in San Mateo and Alameda County.

Notification

Posting for pesticide use must be done 3 days before treatment, and remain up for 4 days after treatment, except for least-hazardous (Tier III) products, which require posting only on the day of treatment.

✓ Postings must clearly identify the area to be treated. Signs should be placed at locations most likely to be seen by members of the public using the treated area.

✓ Posting is not required for median strips or rights-of-way when these areas are not intended for public use.

✓ Posting is not required for areas inaccessible to the public. [See our recent article on this: San Francisco Pesticides and Inaccessible Areas]

✓ ‘Most hazardous’ (Tier I) herbicides have special notification requirements:

  • Blue dye must be used, and this must be noted on the posting sign. Blue dye is not required in areas where 1) posting is not required, and 2) staining may occur, such as ornamental stone median strips.
  • When treatment sites that cannot be readily identified by the posting sign alone, a map showing the general location of expected treatment area(s) must be attached to the posting sign.

MORE ACTION REQUIRED

Though the added restrictions in 2016 were a step forward, much more is needed. NRD seems willing to go by the letter of the rules, not the spirit of it. Blackberry should not be treated with persistent herbicides at all, especially not in the fruiting season. It’s going to affect children, wildlife, and anyone who loves picking the berries in season… most parkgoers.

San Francisco Forest Alliance stands for Pesticide-Free Parks – including natural areas.

Advertisements

San Francisco Pesticides and “Inaccessible Areas”

One of our supporters has been pursuing a concerning issue regarding pesticide application in San Francisco. As our regular readers will know, proper notices are required when spraying toxic herbicides (designated Tier II, More Hazardous and Tier I, Most Hazardous) on city property – including our parks. Recently, SF Environment made changes to its application guidelines to provide better protection to the public, and to workers applying the pesticides. This requirement includes adding a blue dye to the mix so the public can see what has been sprayed with these chemicals.

However, there’s a loophole. Neither notices nor dye are required if the area is “inaccessible to the public.”  As the Natural Resources Department (renamed from NAP, the Natural Areas Program) works to limit public access to only a few “maintained trails” we’re concerned that this will give SF Recreation and Parks a free pass to use toxic herbicides like glyphosate (Roundup) without notices or dye.

So concerned citizen Tom Borden gathered information under the Sunshine Act. His research culminated in this letter to the Commissioners for the Environment.

Commissioners,

The department you oversee is willfully violating San Francisco’s Environment Code by offering City departments a loophole to avoid posting when pesticides are sprayed.  The Environment code Section 304 requires posting for all pesticide applications in all locations.  (One exception is noted, “right-of-way locations that the general public does not use for recreational purposes”.  This is intended to allow unposted treatments at places like roadway median strips, but certainly not in parks, adjacent to sidewalks and in watersheds.)

However, the IPM Compliance checklist says something very different, “Posting is not required for areas inaccessible to the public.”  This “publicly inaccessible” exception violates the Code and puts City workers and the public at risk.  According to IPM staff, they leave it up to individual departments to decide which areas are “publicly inaccessible”.  IPM staff have stated they do not make it their business to monitor these designations.

This clearly puts City employees at risk of unwitting exposure to pesticides.  It also puts the public at risk as land managers are left to their own devices to decide which areas qualify as “publicly inaccessible”.

On top of this, the Reduced Risk Pesticide List: Restrictions on “most hazardous”(Tier I) herbicides, was revised this March to remove the requirement that blue dye be added to Tier I herbicides if they are used in places where posting is not required.  In other words, if the land manager deems a location to be “publicly inaccessible”, there is no requirement to post and no requirement to use the indicator dye.  Anyone who goes through the area, City employee or member of the general public, will have no idea they are exposing themselves to Tier I herbicides.  (Why would you remove this cheap protection, even if it did only benefit the person applying the herbicide?  Also, the blue dye enables them to see where they sprayed, allowing them to apply the herbicide more efficiently.)

This posting loophole is not necessary under the precautionary principle and it violates the law.  It opens the City to lawsuits from employees who were not provided the protections the law promises.  I hope you will have the Department to rectify this.

See the email exchange below for additional information..

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Tom Borden

EMAILS IN THE BACKSTORY

If you want to see the email trail yourself, here it is:

This is a Sunshine request.

San Francisco Environment Code Section 304.(e) allows the Department of Environment to grant permanent (ongoing as opposed to one time) exemptions to the notification requirements of the code.

(e)   The Department may grant exemptions to the notification requirements for one-time pesticide uses and may authorize “permanent” changes in the way City departments notify the public about pesticide use in specific circumstances, upon a “finding” that good cause exists to allow an exemption to the notification requirements. Prior to granting an exemption pursuant to this subsection, the City department requesting the exemption shall identify the specific situations in which it is not possible to comply with the notification requirements and propose alternative notification procedures. The Department shall review and approve the alternative notification procedures.

Please provide a list of all “permanent” exemptions that have been granted in the last 10 years.  If any have been granted to the Recreation and Parks Department or the SFPUC, please provide copies of those “findings” and a copy of the exemption request from the department.

He got a response – a phone call with Chris Geiger, responsible for San Francisco’s Integrated Pest Management program. Chris performs a delicate balancing act between reducing pesticide use and dealing with land managers who want to use these chemical weapons against “invasive” plants.  Tom asked for confirmation of the discussion in writing. He got it from Anthony Valdez, Commission Secretary.

On 7/5/2017 3:14 PM, Valdez, Anthony (ENV) wrote:

Tom:
As Chris Geiger discussed with you – the Department of the Environment has not granted any permanent exemptions to the posting requirements of Environment Code Section 304(a) for publicly accessible parcels. We do allow variances from the posting requirements for some publicly inaccessible parcels, most notably certain areas of San Francisco International Airport and closed utility rights-of-way managed by the Public Utilities Commission.
Thanks, Anthony
Anthony E. Valdez, MPA
Commission Secretary

Okay, good. So just to make sure, Tom asked:

Anthony,

Are any areas managed by the Recreation and Parks Department considered “publicly inaccessible parcels”?
If so, please provide a list of those areas and the associated variances from the posting requirements.

Thanks, Tom

Anthony responded:

On 7/12/2017 2:48 PM, Valdez, Anthony (ENV) wrote:
Tom –
Apologies for my delay in coordinating a response – we have two Commission on the Environment meetings this week. Please see the response below from Chris Geiger. Again, I encourage you to feel free to email or call Chris with any questions you may have:

The Department of the Environment does not review individual parcels to determine if they qualify as “publicly inaccessible.” That determination is left to the individual departments, including the Dept. of Recreation and Parks. We therefore do not have any specific variances or exemptions on file.  The reference document for this policy is the IPM Compliance Checklist.

You mentioned on the phone that you want to ascertain whether park areas adjacent to trails might be considered “publicly inaccessible” if there were signage requiring users to stay on the trail.  The answer is no. The posting exemption for publicly inaccessible areas is meant to apply to work areas, such as the Rec & Park Corporation Yard, not to public parks. We have never and would not ever grant any posting exemption for this kind of situation, and in my tenure we have never had any discussions or written exchanges with the Dept. of Recreation & Parks where this question has even come up. In my experience, Recreation & Parks has been quite careful and responsible in complying with posting requirements.

Anthony E. Valdez, MPA
Commission Secretary

That sounded encouraging. Just to confirm, though…

Thanks Anthony and Chris,

It’s good to know all herbicide applications in regular parkland and Natural Areas will be posted and that blue marking dye will be used.

On a related topic, Aquamaster was sprayed on Mt Davidson on July 5 [2017].  The treatment was to control poison oak growing onto a primary trail.  The herbicide was sprayed on PO and grass that was literally on the trail edge.  The trail was not closed off as required.  Attached are photos of the sign and the application area. More training and better supervision needed?

Tom

.

 

He followed up with another email.

Chris and Anthony,

In your July 12 email to me you say:

“The Department of the Environment does not review individual parcels to determine if they qualify as “publicly inaccessible.” That determination is left to the individual departments, including the Dept. of Recreation and Parks. We therefore do not have any specific variances or exemptions on file.  The reference document for this policy is the IPM Compliance Checklist.”

I see the Compliance Checklist does say, “Posting is not required for areas inaccessible to the public.”  However, the actual law,  SF Environment Code Chapter 3, does not make any such exception.  The posting exception in the Checklist violates the language of the Environment Code.  How does the Department of Environment justify making this exception?

Chapter 3 is meant to protect everyone in the City.  The IPM Compliance Checklist note removes this protection for City employees.  Doesn’t this leave the City open to lawsuits by willfully removing protections the law promises City employees?

As you know, I am concerned the RPD will use this as a loophole to avoid posting requirements in Natural Areas since their position is that the public is prohibited from straying off trail into those areas.  You state above that your department will not provide oversight of the “publicly inaccessible” designations made by City land managers.  This leaves in doubt what really qualifies as publicly inaccessible and as a result, leaves the public open to exposure to herbicide applications that are not posted or marked with blue dye.

I appreciate that your email also makes assurances that you have not granted RPD any additional posting exceptions, beyond this one granted to all City departments.

Looking forward to your reply,

Tom Borden
415 252 5902

After that, there was the letter to the Commissioners to express the same concerns.

Thanks, Tom, for trying to protect everyone from toxic herbicides in our parks!

Glyphosate in Glen Canyon

There’s increasing evidence that glyphosate – the herbicide Monsanto sells under the names Roundup and Aquamaster – is dangerous to human health, doesn’t degrade in the soil as the company claims, and is a dangerous probable carcinogen. Since SF Department of the Environment changed its classification from Tier II (More hazardous) to Tier I (Most hazardous), SF Rec and Parks has nearly stopped using it. Except in “Natural Areas.”

Recently, one of our supporters sent us these pictures:

It warned they would use Aquamaster (glyphosate) and Milestone (an astonishingly persistent herbicide) on the hillside above Islais Creek.

 

SF RPD should stop all use of Tier I chemicals. (Currently, the Natural Resouces Division uses Garlon and Roundup that are Tier I. ) The benefits are not worth the risk – to the public, their pets, and the people who apply herbicides.

We call on SF Rec and Park to stop using herbicides in our parks.

 

Pesticides in our Parks, Jan-March 2017

Herbicide Spraying in Glen Canyon May 2017

Someone recently sent us this picture (above) of herbicide being sprayed at Glen Canyon.

Saw a guy spraying pesticides in Glen Canyon today. I didn’t want to get close enough to read the sign because he’s spraying right now and I’m pregnant.  I’m assuming its one of the same old for the same old reasons.  It’s right near a child’s classroom and right near someone’s backyard.  Somewhat related, did you hear that a coyote in Glen Canyon was killed by rat poison?

Clicking on the picture will bring you to a very short video of the spraying.

In other news, the petition opposing pesticides finally closed with 12,113 signatures!

PESTICIDE USAGE, FIRST QUARTER 2017

We recently received and compiled the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department (SFRPD) pesticide usage reports for the first quarter of 2017. There’s good news and bad news.

Bad news first: The first quarter continues to be Garlon time in the Natural Areas, which comprise the areas under the Natural Resources Division of SFRPD and the SFPUC areas that are managed by the same land managers.

In 2017, they applied Garlon 25 times, up from 23 in 2016. The volume applied is nearly the same; on an “active ingredient” calculation, it’s 61.2 fluid ounces in 2017 slightly down from 61.5 fl oz in 2016. Garlon is used only against Bermuda buttercups (oxalis, sourgrass, soursob, oxalis pes caprae).

The main parks where it was applied were Twin Peaks, McLaren Park, and Mt Davidson, though they did use it at other locations too.

This is especially bad news because Garlon is one the most toxic herbicides the city is allowed to use. Ever since we’ve been following it, not only has it been designated Tier I (Most hazardous), there’s been a notation against it: HIGH PRIORITY TO FIND AN ALTERNATIVE.

Garlon is also supposed to be twenty times as toxic to women as to men. (See page 28 of this California Native Plant Society Presentation which discusses best management practices in herbicide use: Law_Johnson 2014 presentation toxicity )

Oxalis is not considered terribly invasive. Its brilliant yellow color and early spring flowering make it very visible, but it needs disturbance to spread. If it is ignored, it will over time give way to other plants. In any case, after its explosion of spring color, it dies down and other plants take over. There is considerable doubt about the effectiveness of herbicides on oxalis, because it grows from bulbils (tiny bulbs) that are well protected, and will resprout the following season.

Here’s our quick presentation about Garlon and oxalis: Garlon vs Oxalis in Ten Easy Slides. In summary: San Francisco could get rid of this very toxic “HIGH PRIORITY TO FIND ALTERNATIVE” herbicide merely by calling a truce on its war with oxalis. (Here’s a longer article, with some lovely photographs: Five Reasons why it’s okay to love oxalis and stop poisoning it )

Now for the good news:

  • SFRPD has cut back a lot on its use of Roundup (also called Aquamaster), i.e. Glyphosate. This is the chemical that the WHO declared a probable carcinogen.  In 2017, Natural Areas used it three times, twice at Twin Peaks and once at Laguna Honda.
  • The main user of Glyphosate: Golden Gate Park Nursery, which Chris Geiger (the Integrated Pest Management person at SF Environment) explained is not a public area. They used either 25 fl oz or 40 fl oz of glyphosate (active ingredient basis), depending on whether one of the entries is a duplication. We have a question in about that to SFRPD and SF Environment, and will update this when we have an answer.
  • No Tier I herbicides were used in Glen Canyon from Jan-March 2017. Though Natural Areas elsewhere were sprayed with Garlon for oxalis, none was used in Glen Canyon – where neighbors are concerned because of the many small children who play there, as well as potential water contamination.

CONCERNS

We still have concerns, though we do acknowledge the efforts of SF Environment and SFRPD to control the use of toxic herbicides. We will go into those in detail another time, but here are a few, in brief:

  • Allowing the use of Tier I herbicides even in non-public areas does not prevent them from contaminating the environment.
  • This is especially true now that San Francisco will be adding its own ground water to the public water supply. No one wants pesticides coming from our taps.
  • The Natural Areas already severely restrict access by requiring people to stay on the limited number of “designated trails” – mainly broad paths that have been improved in some cases into stairways and mini-roads. Using Tier I herbicides will give them an incentive to block off much of the park, so it is accessible only to SFRPD staff or volunteers.
  • Instead of eschewing herbicides altogether, new combinations are being considered for addition to the list of permitted pesticides.

San Francisco Forest Alliance’s stance: No Pesticides in our Parks.

We continue to work toward this goal, and support the efforts of SF Environment and thousands of people to get there.

 

 

So Much City, So Little Green

This beautiful aerial view of San Francisco, taken by Fiona Fay and used here with permission, shows just how important our urban forests are. At just 13.7% cover, San Francisco has amongst the smallest tree canopy of any major city. And yet, there are plans to cut down thousands of trees – even though we’re already behind on replacing those that die naturally.

Photo Credit: @FionaFaytv of the IRN- NutritionHub.org

It shows may of the places now vulnerable to the plans of the land managers – mostly SF Recreation and Parks’ Natural Resources Division, which uses toxic pesticides, cuts down healthy and mature trees, and limits access in the name of protecting native plants; but also UCSF, which owns most of Sutro Forest and partners with the Sutro Stewards that have the same nativist bias; and Treasure Island Development Authority, which is using a nativist plan similar to that of the Natural Resources Division.

Visit these places, make your memories and photograph their beauty. Send us pictures on Facebook [https://www.facebook.com/ForestAlliance/] or by email to SFForestNews@gmail.com – we will publish and archive them. (If you want them shared on this website, please include permission to do so.)

Photo Credit: @FionaFaytv ; Labels: SFForest

Our trees provide enormous health and environmental benefits. Especially in these difficult times, every tree counts.

Read More: Twenty Reasons Why Urban Trees are Important to Us All

Yet, our tree canopy is small, and shrinking not growing.

Graph showing urban tree canopy cover in major US cities

San Francisco Has the Least Canopy Cover of any Major US City

.
.
.
.
.
.
**********

Roundup, Garlon, and Pesticide-Free Parks

New evidence has emerged that Monsanto influenced the Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) to downplay the cancer-causing risk of Roundup. This pesticide, and others that may be even more hazardous, are used in our parks and watersheds. And now, since San Francisco is adding ground water to the Hetch Hetchy water we have been getting, our water may contain traces of these hazardous chemicals.

 

MONSANTO OFFERED TO GHOST-WRITE KEY REPORT SECTIONS ON ROUNDUP

Bloomberg and other news sources show that Monsanto offered to ghost-write sections of the EPA report on glyphosate, and sought the help of an EPA official to kill the reports that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen.

We reported earlier that a letter by an EPA employee Dr Marion Copley, written as she was dying, says: “It is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer.” She also said it is an endocrine disruptor, and alleged corruption within the EPA.

A California Superior Court judge has ruled that Roundup can be added to the Prop 65 list of known carcinogens, despite Monsanto’s attempts to block such a listing. “State regulators were waiting for the formal ruling before moving forward with the warnings, said Sam Delson, a spokesman for the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.” 

Dr Copley’s letter only used glyphosate (Roundup, Aquamaster) as an example. The letter hinted that other chemicals might have fared similarly – that is, not been properly evaluated because of corporate influence on EPA employees. We the public cannot assume that toxicology tests performed by the companies producing the pesticides or scientists they may pressure are sufficient to prove the chemicals are harmless.

ROUNDUP AND GARLON IN OUR PARKS

Roundup has been used for years by SFRPD and other city entities. Only in  2015 was it designated a Tier I (most hazardous) pesticide. We tracked its use in San Francisco’s Natural Areas from 2008 to 2016. (It’s also used in other parks, and by the PUC, but we have not compiled those data.)

In the bar-graph here, the green section represents Roundup. The Natural Resources Department (NRD) increased its use of Roundup each year from 2009 to 2013, then decreased it in 2014, slightly increased it in 2015, and now has brought it down to below 2010 levels – though not as low as in 2009 or 2010.

The orange section is Garlon, a Tier I (Most Hazardous) herbicide that’s considered even more toxic than Roundup. Garlon is also supposed to be twenty times as toxic to women as to men. (See page 28 of this California Native Plant Society Presentation which discusses best management practices in herbicide use: Law_Johnson 2014 presentation toxicity )

Nowadays, Garlon in San Francisco is used only by the Natural Resources Department against Bermuda buttercups (oxalis).

PROGRESS – AND A NEW PROBLEM ABOUT TO HAPPEN

SF Environment has responded to community concerns (including a petition opposing pesticides in schools and parks that has more than 12,000 signatures) by introducing a list of restrictions on the use of Tier I (but not Tier II) chemicals. (Their Tier system classifies all allowable pesticides as Tier III – Least Hazardous, Tier II – More Hazardous, and Tier I – Most Hazardous.)

Though we believe the restrictions do not go far enough, they are a start. SF Environment has not published the final version, but there is a current draft. We are providing our comments to the Commission for the Environment and to SF Environment in the hope that they will modify the conditions under which use of Tier I herbicides are permitted. (We’ll post about this soon.)

But – starting 2017, SF Environment is going to approve the use of something new: Milestone VM Plus. It’s a mix of Garlon and Milestone VM (aminopyralid). This combination is being approved as a Tier II herbicide. Amino-pyralid is the pesticide so persistent that it lasts for years – and if an animal eats treated vegetation, its droppings become toxic too. It was considered a Tier I pesticide until SF Environment decided to reclassify it as Tier II in 2013. It’s banned in New York and effectively in a number of other states too.

We’ve protested. Here’s our letter:

Dear Commissioners, Director Raphael, and Dr Geiger,

We are dismayed that a new triclopyr-based pesticide is being added to the 2017 pesticide list, and in combination with aminopyralid – and that too as Tier II. This is at a time when we’re working to *remove* triclopyr (as Garlon) from the list. We refer to Milestone VM Plus, which is Aminopyralid, triisopropanolamine salt, 2%; Triclopyr, triethylamine salt, 16%. It’s for injection and for tree stumps. As we understand it, this is a mixture of Garlon 3 and Milestone.

This could be disastrous. Triclopyr is one of the most toxic herbicides still on the list. And Milestone VM (Aminopyralid) is uncannily persistent – it can last for years. If vegetation treated with it is eaten by animals and excreted, the excreta still contains enough herbicide to harm plants. Until 2013, Milestone was considered a Tier I chemical for its persistence – and then changed to Tier II (possibly at the request of the Natural Resources Department, since other SFRPD departments don’t use Milestone VM.)  If Milestone VM Plus is used on trees in a forest or stand of trees, it could weaken adjacent healthy trees through the intergrafted root network, thus destabilizing groups of trees.

We urge you to delete Milestone VM Plus from your restricted list. It’s no better than using Garlon with some added Milestone. If it must be retained, please classify it as Tier I.

Respectfully,
San Francisco Forest Alliance

HERBICIDES IN OUR WATER?

This year,  San Francisco started adding well water drawn from under the city to our tap water. Roundup or Aquamaster (glyphosate) and other pesticides such as Garlon (triclopyr), Milestone (aminopyralid), and Stalker (imazapyr) – and their breakdown products, some of which may be even more toxic – could well be contaminating our water supply.

Pesticide supporters argue it doesn’t matter, because the amounts are small. But:

  • Herbicides (and other chemicals) could interact in ways that are unpredictable. No one has researched them.
  • There’s no way of knowing how much the cumulative exposure is for any individual. This is particularly a concern for children, whose low body weight and fast growth make them especially vulnerable; and for people with illnesses or chemical sensitivities.
  • Importantly, if they are endocrine disruptors – which means they act like hormones in the human body – tiny amounts can have a disproportionate impact. It’s an exception to the “dose makes the poison” saying. Here’s an article that cites references to studies showing endocrine disruption from glyphosate: Why Low Dose Pesticides are Still Hazards.

PESTICIDE FREE PARKS

We have heard some parents don’t take their children to Glen Canyon any more, owing to pesticide concerns. One of the restrictions that SF Environment will impose is no use of Tier I pesticides in areas frequented by children. (Tier II herbicides will still be allowed.)

While the San Francisco Forest Alliance asks for no pesticides in our parks (and watersheds), San Francisco could make a start by converting parks with children’s play areas to Pesticide-Free Parks. Here’s an example from Seattle.

Opponents of restricting pesticide use in this way might fear that the park looks awful, so we went and had a look. It was a sunny afternoon, and the park was beautiful.


The park was full of kids of all ages, from babies and toddlers to teenagers. One man rocked his tiny pink-clad baby daughter.  Another dad brought his small son to kick a ball around in the grass. School age kids chased each other with squirt-guns. Some families brought their dogs, who are allowed in the park. It must be a relief to know that you can safely take your family to such a park, and not encounter Roundup or Garlon, Stalker or Milestone VM.

The park has a nice playground.

It also had an organic community garden…

… complete with a green roof.

And a rain garden.

And a multilingual welcome sign.

It was a lovely example of the kind of Inclusive Environmentalism that San Francisco Forest Alliance stands for.

Garlon v. Oxalis – in 10 Easy Slides

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.